In terms of “brand,”so to speak, Sanders is gold, and Clinton is poison. That’s just the numbers. All of the networks know how popular Sanders is, and are in a hurry to conceal it. Why? It doesn’t drop demand.
Clearly this political science Rainman evaluated the risk of retaliatory New York City boycotts and figured the tourist industry was invulnerable.
It would be like Buycott but automatically list and target a given show’s commercial sponsors. It would be a direct social media connection with marketers. Consumers are now aware of smear campaigns after a show has aired, and can do something about it.
For example, the app would list sponsors for any given show. A car insurance company, a car company, a restaurant, a product, or any business with an online presence and social media connection could be notified and/or temporarily or permanently blocked from an online purchase since it integrates with the desktop or laptop.
Advertisers can weigh the advantages of buying air time on neutral shows, and avoid the divisive propaganda channels.
Truth be told the whole marketing thing is an unpleasant analogy, but it needs to be used for the target audience here, the network sponsors, to understand:
Negative trending on social media would be noted by sponsors in real time, and they could determine if a host’s sagging popularity or bias is affecting a product brand. For example, the Bernie Sanders movement is now a global phenomenon. It is, indeed, a revolution. It is very easy to see which hosts are attacking an opportunity; an audience for a product, and act accordingly. Some of these hosts, through bias, have become marketing poison. In terms of “branding” and “consumers,” so to speak, Sanders is gold, as non-GMO products are now; and Clinton is poison. That’s just the numbers. All of the networks know how popular Sanders is, and are in a hurry to conceal it. But why? The data is there, however, and self-evident. If they managed to convince Americans that Sanders was doomed we would see Clinton in the top picture and Sanders in the bottom in the pictures below.
In other words, ignoring Sanders is bad for business and associating your brand with those with who attack his movement is foolish. That is the Warren Effect.
Sanders has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he has a large, international following and if he endorses someone, they prosper, and if he condemns another, that person fails.
The app warns marketers to avoid that show because an audience will simultaneously have direct access to the sponsors themselves. It will also have a means to prevent the purchase of a given product.
— UnifyLabor (@unifylabor) June 6, 2016
The Clinton brand is so toxic, for instance, that bumper stickers for Hillary don’t even use her name. It’s just an H with “America” next to it. It is the same as with the Bush name, when Jeb Bush just went by “Jeb” because he knew he was tied to a toxic brand. It’s interesting to see how many Clinton stickers I’ve seen in a state where she supposedly won in a landslide. All I saw was Bernie, consistent with the stadium crowds in California, and every parking lot had several. I only saw one Hillary sticker so far, after all these months, and it was the loneliest bumper sticker I ever saw. That too, was consistent with the size of Hillary’s audiences. There’s still 2 million votes to count, however, which would actually determine the true outcome.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.